Detailed Information on Publication Record

NASIR, Z. H., D. MERTZ, R. NIEUWLAAT, N. SANTESSO, T. LOTFI, A. MOTILALL, L. MOJA, L. MBUAGBAW, Miloslav KLUGAR, A. F. TURGEON, J. L. MATHEW, C. CANELO-AYBAR, K. POTTIE, O. DEWIDAR, M. W. LANGENDAM, A. IORIO, G. E. VIST, J. J. MEERPOHL, S. FLOTTORP, T. KREDO, T. PIGGOTT, M. MATHEWS, A. QASEEM, D. K. CHU, P. TUGWELL, Jitka KLUGAROVÁ, H. NELSON, H. HUSSEIN, J. SUVADA, I. NEUMANN and H. J. SCHÜNEMANN. An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. New York: Elsevier, 2022, vol. 147, July 2022, p. 83-94. ISSN 0895-4356. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.008.

Other formats: BibTeX LaTeX RIS

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 1847084
AU  - Nasir, Z. H. - Mertz, D. - Nieuwlaat, R. - Santesso, N. - Lotfi, T. - Motilall, A. - Moja, L. - Mbuagbaw, L. - Klugar, Miloslav - Turgeon, A. F. - Mathew, J. L. - Canelo-Aybar, C. - Pottie, K. - Dewidar, O. - Langendam, M. W. - Iorio, A. - Vist, G. E. - Meerpohl, J. J. - Flottorp, S. - Kredo, T. - Piggott, T. - Mathews, M. - Qaseem, A. - Chu, D. K. - Tugwell, P. - Klugarová, Jitka - Nelson, H. - Hussein, H. - Suvada, J. - Neumann, I. - Schünemann, H. J.
PY  - 2022
TI  - An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance
JF  - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
VL  - 147
IS  - July 2022
SP  - 83-94
EP  - 83-94
PB  - Elsevier
SN  - 08954356
KW  - COVID-19
KW  - Divergence
KW  - Discordance
KW  - GRADE
KW  - Guidelines
KW  - Recommendations
UR  - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435622000695
N2  - Objective To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by COVID-19 guideline developers catalogued on the “COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization” platform. Study Design and Setting We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgements of strength, direction or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. Results Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements (Cramer’s V = 0.7, Fisher’s exact test; P <0.001). Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. Date of publication, utilized evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. Conclusion More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.
ER  -

Basic information
Original name	An evaluation of the eCOVID19 Recommendation Map identified diverging Clinical and Public Health guidance
Authors	NASIR, Z. H., D. MERTZ, R. NIEUWLAAT, N. SANTESSO, T. LOTFI, A. MOTILALL, L. MOJA, L. MBUAGBAW, Miloslav KLUGAR (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), A. F. TURGEON, J. L. MATHEW, C. CANELO-AYBAR, K. POTTIE, O. DEWIDAR, M. W. LANGENDAM, A. IORIO, G. E. VIST, J. J. MEERPOHL, S. FLOTTORP, T. KREDO, T. PIGGOTT, M. MATHEWS, A. QASEEM, D. K. CHU, P. TUGWELL, Jitka KLUGAROVÁ (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), H. NELSON, H. HUSSEIN, J. SUVADA, I. NEUMANN and H. J. SCHÜNEMANN (guarantor).
Edition	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, New York, Elsevier, 2022, 0895-4356.

Other information
Original language	English
Type of outcome	Article in a journal
Field of Study	30304 Public and environmental health
Country of publisher	United States of America
Confidentiality degree	is not subject to a state or trade secret
WWW	URL
Impact factor	Impact factor: 7.200
RIV identification code	RIV/00216224:14110/22:00125668
Organization unit	Faculty of Medicine
Doi	http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.008
UT WoS	000808123800005
Keywords in English	COVID-19; Divergence; Discordance; GRADE; Guidelines; Recommendations
Tags	14119612, 14119613, rivok
Tags	International impact, Reviewed
Changed by	Changed by: Mgr. Tereza Miškechová, učo 341652. Changed: 19/7/2022 08:28.

Abstract
Objective To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by COVID-19 guideline developers catalogued on the “COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization” platform. Study Design and Setting We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgements of strength, direction or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. Results Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements (Cramer’s V = 0.7, Fisher’s exact test; P <0.001). Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. Date of publication, utilized evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. Conclusion More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.

Abstract

Objective To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by COVID-19 guideline developers catalogued on the “COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization” platform. Study Design and Setting We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgements of strength, direction or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. Results Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements (Cramer’s V = 0.7, Fisher’s exact test; P <0.001). Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. Date of publication, utilized evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. Conclusion More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.